"These large corporations have the internal characteristics of a planned economy. Information flow is systematically distorted up the chain of command, by each rung in the hierarchy telling the next one up what it wants to hear. And each rung of management, based on nonsensical data (not to mention absolutely no direct knowledge of the production process) sends irrational and ass-brained decisions back down the chain of command. The only thing that keeps large, hierarchical organizations going is the fact that the productive laborers on the bottom actually know something about their own jobs, and have enough sense to ignore policy and lie about it so that production can stagger along despite the interference of the bosses.

When a senior manager decides to adopt a "reform" or to "improve" the process in some way, he typically bases his decision on the glowing recommendations of senior managers in other organizations who have adopted similar policies. Of course, those senior managers have no real knowledge themselves of the actual results of the policy, because their own information is based on filtered data from below. Not only does the senior management of an organization live in an imaginary world as a result of the distorted information from below; its imaginary world is further cut off from reality by the professional culture it shares with senior management everywhere else. “…in a rigid hierarchy, nobody questions orders that seem to come from above, and those at the very top are so isolated from the actual work situation that they never see what is going on below.”12

The root of the problem, in all such cases, is that individual human beings can only make optimally efficient decisions when they internalize all the costs and benefits of their own decisions. In a large hierarchy, the consequences of the irrational and misinformed decisions of the parasites at the top are borne by the people at the bottom who are actually doing the work. And the people doing the work, who both know what's going on and suffer the ill effects of decisions by those who don't know what's going on, have no direct control over the decision-making."

-Kevin Carson, Studies In Mutualist Political Economy (In print: page 322, online: http://www.mutualist.org/id88.html )

The book: http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html

Journal Of Libertarian Studies' Symposium Issue on Studies in Mutualist Political Economy: http://www.mises.org/jlsDisplay.asp?action=sort&volume=20&number=1&submit=View



This is one of the most significant things Carson's book has to say. This has been my experience in the work world. The exception being when I wasn't working for some large corporation. The two small businesses I worked for gave me the almost daily opportunity to express my concerns to my boss. In one case, I was half his work force! Therefore my observations had much more weight than in my current job working for another corporate monolith.

There is, however, one major element he doesn't emphasize. Management, at each level, has to take responsibility for the laziness and ineptitude of subordinates. I have refused to be promoted in my current job because I experienced this as a manager trainee and assistant manager. Despite this, I have been functionally having to act as management. The managers don't make the other employees do their jobs. If I try to manage them without official authority, they ignore me. If I run to to the boss, I am a snitch. If I do the work they neglect (which is what most often happens), I don't take as many tables. I am also doing work I am not being paid for. I also build up resentment towards people I have to work with, which is not healthy. If I throw up my hands join them in neglecting my work, I debase myself by sinking to their level. Beyond that I foster a workplace which is not welcoming to customers, who I depend on for tips.

In light of all this let's consider this sentence:

"The root of the problem, in all such cases, is that individual human beings can only make optimally efficient decisions when they internalize all the costs and benefits of their own decisions."

This goes just as much for those at the bottom as those at the top. Josiah Warren's theory and successful practice of equitable exchange (which is the main predecessor of the American individualist tradition which Carson is a part of) came from bad experience in New Harmony. New Harmony was a Utopian commune established by Robert Owen. According the idea of equitable exchange, all exchanges should be in equivalent amounts of labor, hence his use of labor notes as a medium of exchange instead on standard money. If one person works more than another, that person is being exploited. The strength of his theory is that this applies just as much to a capitalist who derives income from charging consumers more than it cost to bring something to market (which he considered usury) as it does to a "fellow worker" who lives off the work of someone who picks up his slack because of need to complete a project both are working on. One of the things that drew me to Marxism was the Bible verse which says "He who does not work should not eat". I rejected it for the exact same reason. Communism applies this verse only to capitalists (the "parasites at the top"), and not to one's "comrades". Capitalism applies it to workers and not capitalists. Mutualism, on the other hand, applies it to everyone. In the words of Proudhon "To each according to his works, first; and if, on occasion, I am impelled to aid you, I will do it with a good grace; but I will not be constrained" (The Philosophy of Misery). I doubt Carson would object to anything I've said here, since it's all implied in his philosophy, but it would be nice if he said so explicitly. I'll send him an email to inform him of this post.